2. Defendant 1’s appeal is dismissed.

3. The plaintiff bears the total costs of the lawsuit between the plaintiff and defendant 2, and the costs of appeal between the plaintiff and defendant 1 are borne by defendant 1.

On February 17, 2006, the Jeju District Court deleted the dividend amount of KRW 1,694,025,038 to the plaintiff, among the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on February 17, 2006, from KRW 1,792,463,612, the dividend amount of Defendant 1 to Defendant 36,13,859, and the dividend amount of Defendant 2 to Defendant 35,94,715, respectively.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and each of the plaintiff's claims against the Defendants are dismissed.

A. A. Around February 22, 2003, Defendant 1 leased the building No. 1 listed in the separate sheet from the National Scenic Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Scenic Construction”) to KRW 39 million for lease deposit. On March 4, 2003, Defendant 1 moved into the building on March 4, 2003, and at the same time, Defendant 2 moved into the building as indicated in the lease agreement to “No. 711 Ethurel 404 in Jeju-si, Jeju-dong,” and Defendant 2 moved into the building No. 2 listed in the separate sheet from the National Scenic Construction on February 26, 2003 on the same day, and entered into the move-in report to move-in as “No. 711 in Jeju-do, No. 504” as stated in the lease agreement.

B. However, around March 18, 2003, the construction completion of the entire building, including each building listed in the separate sheet, "Yel" was completed on the 3 to 12th floor above ground, and the building management ledger was completed on the 404th floor above the 5th floor above the 5th 404th unit, and the 504th unit of the 504 unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 2003rd unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 2003rd unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 2003 unit of the 12nd unit of the 3 to 12th floor of the 3rd unit of the ground, and the 504th unit of the 200 million unit of the 5th unit of the 200 million unit of the 203.

C. After that, the Defendants came to know that the number of units of the registry on each building listed in the separate sheet was changed as above, Defendant 1 filed a report on March 31, 2003, changing the number of units on the resident registration card from “404 to “4, 304,” and Defendant 2 filed a report on April 8, 2003 to “504,” respectively.

D. After that, on December 2, 2004 upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Jeju District Court (Seoul District Court 2004Ma24771) commenced the voluntary auction procedure for each building listed in the separate sheet, and on February 17, 2006, the above court made a distribution schedule for each of the dividends to the Plaintiff, who is the creditor (the mortgagee) on February 17, 2006, including KRW 1,694,025,038, KRW 36,133,859, and KRW 35,94,715, and the Plaintiff raised an objection as to the dividends to the Defendants.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap 1, 4, 5, Gap 6-3, 4, Eul 1-5, 5, 6

25-29, each entry of Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff should be deemed to have obtained opposing power by making a resident registration valid as a method of public announcement of the lease only after the plaintiff changed his/her address on March 31, 2003 and April 8, 2003 in accordance with the actual number of each building indicated in the separate sheet as shown in the separate sheet. Since the plaintiff set up a right to collateral security, the defendant asserts that he/she has no right to receive the lease deposit from the successful bid price of each building listed in the separate sheet prior to the plaintiff.

On the other hand, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff had the right to receive the lease deposit in preference to the Plaintiff, who is the right holder of the right to collateral security established thereafter, on March 4, 2003 and February 26, 2003, according to the current status of each building listed in the attached list and the record of the lease agreement. Therefore, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff had the right to receive the lease deposit in preference to the Plaintiff, who is the right holder of the right to collateral security established thereafter.

3. Determination

A. Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides as the requirement for opposing power along with the delivery of a house. Since the resident registration has been established as the method of public announcement that enables a third party to clearly recognize the existence of a right of lease for the safety of transaction, the issue of which resident registration has the effect of public announcement should be determined depending on whether the lessee can be recognized as the person who has an address or a domicile in the relevant lease building as the resident registration under the general social norms. In addition, even if the entry of the address of the lessee who completed the lease before the completion of the registration of preservation of ownership of a house under construction corresponds to the current status of the house at the time of the change of the change of the situation, if the change of the situation changed later, it is difficult to recognize that the third party who had an interest in the registration has been registered as the person who has an address or a residence in the relevant house based on the initial resident registration under the premise of the change of the situation, barring any special circumstance. Therefore, the resident registration cannot be the effective method of public announcement in relation to the third party.

B. First of all, as to Defendant 1’s health unit, the aforementioned Defendant made a move-in report to 711 on March 4, 2003 with “No. 404 on the housing unit in Jeju-si,” but as the building management ledger was prepared, the above “No. 404” was indicated as “No. 304 on the fourth floor,” and the registration of ownership was completed on March 27, 2003 at the same time as the registration of ownership was completed under the name of Bolar Construction. Since the above Defendant’s move-in report to 304 on March 31, 203 with the “No. 4304,” the above Defendant’s move-in report cannot be seen as being inconsistent with the above Defendant’s allegation that “No. 404,” and the above Defendant’s move-in report to 404, which was indicated as “No. 404,” and it cannot be seen as being inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s address and the above list “No. 40454,” as the above.

C. Next, on February 26, 2003, the above defendant made a move-in report to "Nos. 711 Es. 504 Es. 71 Es. 504 in Jeju-si," and on the grounds as seen above, on April 8, 2003, changed the number of resident registration cards to "Nos. 404" as of April 8, 2003 as seen above. For the above reasons, the above defendant's resident registration indicated as "no. 504", which does not coincide with the actual number of buildings No. 2 as indicated in the attached list No. 2, cannot be deemed as valid as the public announcement method of the lease of this case, and it can be deemed that the above defendant acquired opposing power only when he had changed his address on April 8, 2003 in accordance with the actual number of houses.

However, it is common to investigate whether a person who intends to be a ordinary security right holder has leased and resided in a building offered as a security. Thus, in this case, the plaintiff was also aware of the security value by asking the obligor or directly investigating the object of security prior to acquiring the right to collateral security on each building listed in the separate sheet, and in this process, the building No. 2 listed in the separate sheet (the "No. 404") which is likely to be perceived as "No. 504" is leased and resided in the same group, and the defendant 2 was aware of the fact that the number of houses was "No. 504," and the defendant 1 was designated as "No. 404," and therefore, the plaintiff was aware of the existence of a lease opposing the above building in identifying the collateral value of the building, and accordingly, it was acquired under the condition of considering the lessee's deposit amount. However, since the change of the number of houses in the management ledger of the building and the copy of the register of the above building is contrary to the intention of the defendant 2 to exercise the right to collateral.

D. Therefore, it is reasonable that the above auction court distributed 36,133,859 won to Defendant 1 in preference to the Plaintiff, and distributed 35,94,715 won to Defendant 2. Thus, it should be corrected to delete the above amount distributed to Defendant 1 and distribute it to the Plaintiff.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 against the defendant 2 shall be accepted with reasonable grounds, and the claim against the defendant 2 shall be dismissed without reasonable grounds. Since the part against the defendant 2 in the judgment of the court of first instance as to the defendant 2 is unfair, it shall be accepted by the above defendant's appeal and it shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the above defendant shall be dismissed, and the appeal against the defendant

[Attachment List of Real Estate]

Judges Jeong Jong-ju (Presiding Judge)